Friday, March 13, 2015
Mahabharata and the bargaining behaviour of Indian negotiators at global for a
India is berated for being moralistic, for being a perpetual nay-sayer and as someone looking for gaining maximum advantages without yielding an inch. The authors using modern terminology defining negotiation behaviour describe the Indian way as that of “distributive bargaining” in contrast to the “integrative”.
The distributive bargaining mode is described as “start high, concede slowly, exaggerate the value of concessions, minimize the benefits of the other's concessions, conceal information, argue forcefully on behalf of principles that imply favoured settlements, make commitments only to accept highly favourable agreements, and be willing to outwait the other fellow”. The “integrative bargaining” approach involves “attempts to exchange information relatively freely, understanding the other party's real needs and objectives, emphasising commonalities and shared interests, searching for mutually beneficial solutions”.
The authors admit that no country or group pursues only one method of bargaining but chooses one or the other according to the context, and even combines the two. They give the example of Nehru taking the Kashmir issue to the UN. They argue: “ At first glance, this may well appear as a move towards integrative bargaining; after all, what could be a better way of securing mutually beneifically solutions than seeking the help of an impartial international arbiter.? In actuality, this was not the case. While India maintained a sensible strategic caution against escalating the situation to a full-blown war in haste, its appeal to the Security Council was not for mediation but to order Pakistan to withdraw its troops.”
India's position at the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is described as positive but its position at the WTO as that of a wrecker.
The authors believe that the character traits of India's negotiating strategy is rooted in its culture and history, and that not enough attention has been paid to understand this aspect. They cite the example of scholars looking at Sun Tzu, an ancient Chinese author, whose military precepts are used to understand the Chinese approach. They feel, in the Indian case, the Mahabharata could provide the clues. So, they have picked up several stories and episodes from the ancient epic which reveal negotiating positions and then connect it with the present-day India style of negotiators.
The argument is that Western negotiators must understand the Indian cultural mindset to make sense of India's negotiating positions. This is a book meant for a Western readership, but it can be read by Indians as well, with great satisfaction.
The episodes sketched in the book are familiar but they use the quotations from the Critical Edition of the Mahabharata prepared by the Bhandarkar Institute in Pune. The reader has an opportunity to get familiarised with the original text, however scattered it may be.
Congress and the BJP can never hope to dominate Karnataka Forming the government after an election is a necessary part of the democ...
Two historians of Akbar's era -- Abul Fazl and Mullah Abdul Qadir Badayuni, one a so-called liberal and other a conservative and a possible hereticWhen it comes to reading about Mughal emperor Akbar's time, the dominant fashion is to rely on Abul Fazl's Akbar Namah. Abul Fazl, ...
Perhaps, bad movies are good because you try to unravel the mystery of why the movie was bad. You are trying to find out reasons. And a ...
Chief Economic Adviser Arvind Subramaniam emerges as a market economist who knows the devil in the details The first paragraph o...